Do's and Don'ts: teaching two-eyes as a rule

[Bill Spight]

To get a feeling of how I got to my current intro,
try this thought experiment. Imagine you want to satisfy these 2 conditions:

• You have zero equipment. You must explain verbally, only. No props. No stones, no board. You can gesture. But no drawing on surfaces. Just your words.
• After your introduction to the first-timer, he has a good chance to re-introduce, in his own words, all the key concepts you've just told him, to another first-timer.

Well, there is where we differ. I think that the basic concepts of go are not linguistic. True, you can use words to link to similar concepts that beginners (especially adults) already have. Also, it is useful, perhaps essential, to label the basic concepts with words. It is also useful that those labels be in common use among go players, i. e., jargon. And it is true that if you start with jargon before you have gotten the concept across, you sow confusion. But that, IMO, is another reason not to start with words.

[Bill Spight]

Well, we can discuss, more or less in the abstract, what is the best approach or approaches to teaching go to absolute beginners. However, I think that people do a pretty good job, just as they do a pretty good job of introducing beginners to other games, such as chess, poker, soccer, golf, etc. I think that the evidence is pretty clear that in the West, anyway, people do not do such a good job of teaching one very important thing to beginners, namely when the game is over.

In the old days, we just said that the game was over when neither player wanted to keep playing. That was not ideal, perhaps, but it got the idea across to most beginners, who played against more experienced players, anyway, who could tell them when the game was over. Nowadays beginners play beginners on the internet, and different rule sets have different rules, often complicated, about ending the game. Whether we tell beginners about nets or ladders, about two eyes or seki, we need to teach them when the game is over.

[HermanHiddema]

There is no best way.

Some people enjoy figuring things out for themselves, others feel more comfortable being told in advance and then trying to apply their knowledge. Some enjoy being posed open-ended question and thinking about them for a few minutes, others feel put on the spot and become like a deer in the headlights.

As a teacher, you should focus on trying to figure out what the student needs to have fun and keep playing. Do they clearly feel uncomfortable with open-ended questions? Ask leading questions that they can answer easily to boost their confidence. Are they struggling to end the game? Unsure how to continue? Jump in and tell them!

They will have to know about two eyes, atari, liberties and all that anyway, and they will learn it regardless of teaching method. If you're too hung up on trying to force your own idea of the "perfect" teaching method on every student, you've lost sight of the goal of teaching.

[xed_over]

There is no best way.

While I don't disagree, in principle, with anything you've said,... I do think there is a method that produces more higher ranked beginners sooner than what appears to be our current methods. And I'm willing to experiment to try and find the "best" results.

Here's an interesting take I've recently stumbled upon, and somewhat along the lines of what I'm searching:
https://fallingstones.wordpress.com/201 ... beginners/
He seems to be talking about influence, frameworks, and territory (and perhaps a little closer to Bill's idea of how to end a game). Staking out a claim (I often talk about planting a flag and the Oklahoma land rush)

[Bonobo]

I think now I must, in the next introduction to Go that I give to whomever, try this:

• 9x9 board (perhaps even 5x5)
• stones
• just demonstrate a quick game and a few typical situations — SILENTLY

… until I get some “ah” and “oh” reactions.

[EdLee]

Well, there is where we differ. I think that the basic concepts of go are not linguistic.

Hi Bill, we're actually in 100% agreement.

The thought experiment came about because I was stuck in a situation with no equipment, so I was forced to use words only, and that led to a breakthrough for me, another way to think about the intro, so I incorporated the good stuff into it. But no, of course I need hardware after about 5 seconds. It's very visual.

[Bantari]

• Start with the grid. (An empty Go board, size irrelevant, but starting with the grid-side up.)
• Mention "stones".

I can agree with most of the list, but I don't see why saying stones is bad. I have to call them something and it works as well as "game pieces".

I fully agree.

Sorry to bunch all the stuff into one post, but I have little time lately, and so I just write on.

----------
@OP:

I have seen similar things as well, when beginners are obsessed with eyes (if this is what they were taught) or with killing (if this is what they were taught) or with something else, depending on the previous day's lesson. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, its just a phase, and with more understanding there will be more flexibility. Don't be upset that you're kid after the first two lessons doesn't play like Takemiya yet, this will come much later. Or it won't.

Either way, keep at it, and it will all work itself out in the end. Many of us went through that at some point. Many of us still do, in one form or another, except we like to call it 'style' now, and pretend it is actually something good.

----------
@Ed:

I am surprised you 'cringe' when you see people using a board to tech beginners. I understand you think you found better way, but I don't think 'cringing' is the right response. Especially, since I firmly believe, that there is no one best method, but each student/teacher combo ultimately requires its own unique approach to make the lesson efficient. Otherwise its all cookie-cutter anyways.

Furthermore, it seems to me, from your own explanation, that when you say "I got rid of jargon" you simply supplant conventional jargon with unconventional one. You say 'pieces' instead of 'stones'. So what? Why is that better? To a chess player, maybe. To a kid, maybe saying 'M&Ms' is even better? Same for pointing and saying 'here' or pointing and saying 'liberty'. What's the difference? You might point and say 'free space'. Its just semantics.

To talk about concepts you need to put words to those concepts eventually, or you will be repeating the same long definition over and over, or just pointing your finger over and over. And if you have no board and no stones, what do you point to? Proper words for the concepts are even more important then. And what is gained by using words which are not commonly accepted as Go terminology instead of the proper ones? I see no point to it...

Same goes for boards/grids and other Go hardware. While I agree that there are situations in which it is very advantageous to talk about Go without all that stuff, it certainly helps. And it goes not only for Go, the idea is valid for all teaching. This is why teachers use props, (physical) examples, and so on... It just helps with visualization. Of course - like with the jargon - you can use paper and coins (for example) or even verbally describe what you mean - but if a board and stones are available, I don't see why not use them.

And finally, you say that grid (especially 19x19) is (or can be) overwhelming for beginners. Sure, it can be. But again, so what? Trying to visualize without a board/grid can also be confusing. Whatever you do can be confusing. There is a theory of teaching which implies throwing the student into deep water and letting him try to figure it all out. Not sure if this is always the best, but it certainly has something to be said for it.

----------
@All:

What are we trying to accomplish here, I ask myself? It is my opinion that not everybody is meant to play Go. Most people find other hobbies more comfortable. And there is nothing wrong with that, I think. Just like not everybody would like baseball, or poker, or speed skating, or whatever.

But of course, almost everything can be presented in a way that makes people think that it is the right thing for them (not that I think that teaching without a board accomplishes that.) Just watch some TV commercials if you want to see some neat tricks. If you want an example - get some cute girls in bikinis, put them somewhere on campus with Go boards and stones, and you'll have a 100++ new devoted players each day, I guarantee. Is that satisfactory?

So personally:
I see nothing wrong with being open and up-front about the game: here is a board (I prefer 19x19 for serious teaching, as you know), here are stones, let me explain the rules (yes, with the right jargon) - and lets see if you like it. This is what it is, this is what you're getting into. There is no point hiding anything, like the jargon, from the beginner. Its part of the game, something they will have to get used to, and the sooner the better. And there are other obstacles: Go is hard, its confusing, and its deep - there is no reason to sugarcoat. If a person is drawn to and has aptitude for Go, they will play and get strong. If they don't, the won't. And neither is right or wrong.

[EdLee]

I am surprised you 'cringe' when you see people using a board to tech beginners.

You misread and misunderstood what I said.
You've done this quite a few times now, making a habit of it.
It's tiresome.
It's an interesting strategy/technique, to misread others and to go off a tangent.

you simply supplant conventional jargon with unconventional one. You say 'pieces' instead of 'stones'. So what? Why is that better?

It depends on what we mean by "better". There's a famous story of Feynman's about knowing the names of birds (fluff), versus knowing the behaviors and properties of the birds (substance). Some people focus on the jargon (fluff), I focus on the key concepts (substance), when teaching first-timers. As I said, after the first few minutes, it doesn't matter. Of course, the jargon is useful in the long run, because it's more efficient for communication. I was referring to the very first few minutes, with first-timers, I find some people focus on using jargon, and make the first-timers very confused -- I cringe at this.

[Bonobo]

“I’m alive, I am aliiiiiiiive!”, cried the … uhm … stone piece token and stretched out its four (uhm, three … uhm, two) liberties arms tentacles proboscides pseudopodia cilia into the grid universe substrate, eager to unite with others of its kind.

[goTony]

So Ed I am Joe off the street showing some interest. Just how do you explain the game to me your way. Could you give an example of you u teach it pls?

I try to avoid jargon and try to keep it simple so it is good to see/hear how someone else would do it.

Thanks

[EdLee]

Hi goTony,

I'm happy to show you.
Right now I'm traveling, out of the country.
When I get home and settle down,
I hope to make a short clip and post it on YouTube.
I mentioned this intro in another thread here a long time ago,
but I'm not sure I can find the link any more.
Thanks.

[goTony]

Hi goTony,

I'm happy to show you.
Right now I'm traveling, out of the country.
When I get home and settle down,
I hope to make a short clip and post it on YouTube.
I mentioned this intro in another thread here a long time ago,
but I'm not sure I can find the link any more.
Thanks.

No worries, hope your enjoying your trip. I think we can all benefit from discussing what works and what does not. So I look forward to your example on Ytube.

I do not believe that calling the pieces stones or freedoms/liberties is too technical or off putting. I also tend to believe that those who will be interested in the game because it looks interesting will want to learn despite an initial rule learning curve. For those not really interested, it does not matter what we call the pieces they will not stay with it if you get to eat the captured M&M's and you give out balloons.

All fields of interest have their own vocabulary. Medicine, law, Music and its oh so many sub categories, Auto repair, Archery, bowling. When a person learns bowling they learn gutter, strike, spare, and in the old days how to count points right of the bat. When someone learns baseball they do not dumb down the terms.

So I think we all wish to spread the word and teach this great game the balance for me is presenting it in an interesting non overwhelming way. I believe the real problem is not the game or the teachers for the most part, but our culture. ( New thread maybe) Our culture as a whole does not encourage thinking games as a good in and of themselves. Chess is ok to dabble in but few people really respect someone who takes it seriously. You can be a football fanatic but not a chess fanatic. A video, sight driven, entertainment culture is not one conducive to playing a long, intellectual board game. Even Asia is seeing its culture change and interest change. Perhaps if GO was seen as a big gambling game, like Texas Hold em we could popularize it by televising it. I know in Korea there is lots of gambling associated with GO.

Perhaps we are doomed to being a small subset of afficionados.

[Bill Spight]

I also tend to believe that those who will be interested in the game because it looks interesting will want to learn despite an initial rule learning curve.

Rule learning curve for go? Consider the rules for chess, with pieces that move differently, pawns that capture differently than they move, castling, en passant, etc. Or the rules for bridge, which are so complex that there are so-called bridge lawyers (not a flattering term). Or the rules for golf, or, heaven forbid, the rules for baseball! The rules of go are nothing by comparison with those of most other interesting games. Go even existed for centuries, if not millenia, without codified rules.

[goTony]

I also tend to believe that those who will be interested in the game because it looks interesting will want to learn despite an initial rule learning curve.

Rule learning curve for go? Consider the rules for chess, with pieces that move differently, pawns that capture differently than they move, castling, en passant, etc. Or the rules for bridge, which are so complex that there are so-called bridge lawyers (not a flattering term). Or the rules for golf, or, heaven forbid, the rules for baseball! The rules of go are nothing by comparison with those of most other interesting games. Go even existed for centuries, if not millenia, without codified rules.

Yes a smaller curve but a curve none the less. What I think frustrates some people is that the rules are so simple but they do not see the atari, or the most basic capture and so feel stupid. I always remind them it is as simple as golf or basketball. There u just put the ball in the hole but it takes practice for the mind to see and know how to do it. Same with GO it will come to you if you just see it a few times.

[Father Alex]

Hi, guys. I'm new to forum and really like idea to start teaching go from concept of territory and stone connection. But how to move kids to the capturing concept? I teach kids for many years, but some of them stuck to the capturing even they was explained many times territory and influence. Any help?